State v. Shelby, 263 So. 3d 1223

William J. Shelby pled guilty to four counts: possession with intent to distribute marijuana (count 1), possession of a firearm while in possession of a controlled dangerous substance (count 2), possession with intent to distribute MDMA (count 3), and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (count 4).
Sentences imposed August 31, 2017: 15 years (count 1), 10 years without benefits (count 2), 15 years (count 3), and 15 years without benefits (count 4); all sentences concurrent.
Defendant later obtained an out-of-time appeal; appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief asserting no non-frivolous issues and moved to withdraw.
The trial court’s plea colloquy and waiver form showed defendant was advised of Boykin rights and of the agreed sentences, and the court found pleas knowing and voluntary.
On error-patent review the appellate court found count 3’s sentence legally deficient because La. R.S. 40:966 B(2) requires at least five years to be served without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension, but the trial court failed to impose that restriction.
Court affirmed convictions and sentences in all respects except remanded for resentencing on count 3 to impose the statutorily required restriction of benefits; granted counsel’s motion to withdraw.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether appointed counsel may withdraw under Anders after review	Counsel: record contains no non-frivolous issues; withdrawal proper	Shelby: (no pro se brief filed)	Court accepted Anders procedure, performed independent review, granted withdrawal
Validity of guilty plea (Boykin warnings, voluntariness)	State: plea colloquy and waiver form show knowing, voluntary plea	Shelby: did not raise involuntariness or Boykin error	Court: plea was valid; no constitutional infirmity found
Appealability of sentence imposed in conformity with plea agreement	State: sentence was set out at plea and consistent with plea; defendant barred from appealing sentence arising from plea	Shelby: did not challenge plea-sentence conformity	Court: sentences are within statutory ranges and were imposed per plea, so generally not reviewable
Whether count 3 sentence is legally proper re: restriction of benefits	State: (did not dispute defect)	Shelby: (did not raise on appeal)	Court: count 3 sentence is illegally lenient for failing to impose statutorily required five-year restriction of benefits; remanded for resentencing on count 3

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (procedure for appointed counsel to seek withdrawal when no non-frivolous issues)
Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (requirements for voluntary plea colloquy)
State v. Bradford, 676 So.2d 1108 (La. App. 5 Cir.) (Anders/Jyles procedure adopted locally)
State v. Landfair, 979 So.2d 619 (La. App. 5 Cir.) (failure to advise of benefit restrictions does not necessarily void plea when sentence conforms to plea)
State v. Williams, 800 So.2d 790 (La.) (La. R.S. 15:301.1 may deem benefit restrictions to exist by operation of law in some circumstances)